PDA

View Full Version : The Glaring Problem




blocks
12-09-2008, 04:30 AM
As much as this forum and the entire movement as a whole disagrees on certain issues, be it abortion or publicly financed infrastructure (roads, highways), some fail to see the core principles and fundamental philosophies that 98% of us agree upon. It may seem that the reason the Democans and the Republicrats remain the controlling entities is the fact that they're willing to sacrifice that 2-5%. But the truth is, this movement is more united and dedicated than those two parties could ever hope to be. The debate between Baldwin and Barr supporters turned ugly, Baldwin was a religious nut and Barr was a coat-tail rider. Not to dispute those claims or affirm them, but let's not turn to insulting one another. We are all on the same team here and we must unite.

mudhoney
12-09-2008, 04:47 AM
I think this is one of the most interesting parts of the Ron Paul movement and this forum. We can furiously disagree on things, yet overall we stick together and actually discuss things. We see each other as individuals capable of rational thought in the presence of controversy.

acptulsa
12-09-2008, 07:26 AM
Religion sure shows up as the divisive subject TPTB have been trying for years to bend and twist it into. If we could make a peace between those factions, we could rule the world (not that this would be a libertarian thing to do, just sayin'). If only the seperation of church and state could be extended into a seperation of religion and politics. Of course, that won't work, but tolerance of each other sure would.

It isn't just that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's that we are liberty lovers and tolerance should be our first and last goal--tolerance of everything but despotism, theft and intolerance.

And the really ironic thing is that the most zealous atheists on this board have the most in common with the most zealous religious people. They are all absolutely right--have a godlike clarity, even--and are more than willing to tell anyone who doesn't see it with their eyes how stupid they are.

It doesn't take reading much of "those" threads to figure out how wonderful and beautiful tolerance is. And if a liberty movement isn't built on tolerance, its foundation sucks.

georgiaboy
12-09-2008, 07:44 AM
I applaud the many members of this forum who vigorously (to put it mildly) debate sensitive topics here - first amendment live and well. We often times don't get to have such conversations and wrestle with issues in our day to day lives like we can here. It's frustrating and cathartic at the same time, and if done with respect and with an open mind, it can lead to increased understanding, tolerance, and growth to all involved, including onlookers.

OP is right - we agree on the fundamentals of constitutional gov't and liberty.

These debates also point out glaringly why government should largely be silent on some of these issues -- there's no real concensus among intellegent free adults, and codifying statute in one direction or the other and away from freedom only serves to make things worse.

Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.

Truth Warrior
12-09-2008, 08:08 AM
Politics Is a Sociopathic Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer96.html)

tangent4ronpaul
12-09-2008, 10:09 AM
As much as this forum and the entire movement as a whole disagrees on certain issues, be it abortion...

Don't make assumptions. There are many Democrats, Independents and Libertarians in the movement that are pro-choice. The only thing we all agree on as to this issue is that it is a STATE issue - not one for the Federal Govt to decide.

-t

Truth Warrior
12-09-2008, 10:12 AM
Don't make assumptions. There are many Democrats, Independents and Libertarians in the movement that are pro-choice. The only thing we all agree on as to this issue is that it is a STATE issue - not one for the Federal Govt to decide.

-t Or you could just Prevent unwanted pregnancies, at the individual level. :rolleyes:

tangent4ronpaul
12-09-2008, 10:20 AM
Or you could just Prevent unwanted pregnancies, at the individual level. :rolleyes:

Might have some issues with the Catholic church on that one...

Lets see - we could hand out condoms in schools - oh, wait - that's socialist.
(not to mention that some religions consider them a sin)

Umm, teach abstinence? - that's worked so well in the past. :rolleyes:

Encourage kids to pull out before they cum? - well...

Birth control and morning after pills - well, some consider that a sin.

Bring chastity belts back into vogue? - ummm...

How about forced sterilization! - oh wait...

ummm... meditation?

I got it! - Burka's and locking girls up till their marriage is arraigned! - yeah, that's the ticket!


so how are you proposing to prevent pregnancies in the first place?

-t

Truth Warrior
12-09-2008, 10:33 AM
Might have some issues with the Catholic church on that one...

Then let the Catholic church feed and raise them.

Lets see - we could hand out condoms in schools - oh, wait - that's socialist.
(not to mention that some religions consider them a sin)

Yep, state involvement is out too.

Umm, teach abstinence? - that's worked so well in the past. :rolleyes:

I'd suggest and recommend teach that sex is for adults, not children of ANY age. :rolleyes:

Encourage kids to pull out before they cum? - well...

Sex is for ADULTS!

Birth control and morning after pills - well, some consider that a sin.

So is killing babies.

Bring chastity belts back into vogue? - ummm...

Whatever is voluntary.

How about forced sterilization! - oh wait...

Lose the force. ;)

ummm... meditation?

Whatever works.


so how are you proposing to prevent pregnancies in the first place?

I just solved it for me. The rest of you are on your own. So far, the standard "Final Solution" to the irresponsible and reckless individual sexual behavior is merely barbaric and unacceptable.<IMHO>

-t

I think that just about covers it. :D

tangent4ronpaul
12-09-2008, 10:42 AM
Well, can you define "children"? - in the US legally that seems to range from 14 to 18 currently. An improvement because the spread used to be 12 to 21 - depending on your state. (I'm talking about when they are considered an adult and can consent to sex without the state considering it a crime - even with another "child")

Problem is this biological thing called puberty when the sex drive kicks in - and it doesn't happen at a uniform age - but generally before the age of 15.

Kids WILL have sex, if you think it's OK or not - and the main problem with unwanted pregnancies is with teenagers.

But yes, I agree it's an individual issue.

As to the church or pro-life groups taking care of kids they have pressured into keeping their kids - they completely loose interest as soon as the kid is born.

btw: you skipped the Burka option...

-t

1000-points-of-fright
12-09-2008, 10:45 AM
We often times don't get to have such conversations and wrestle with issues in our day to day lives like we can here.

That's because few have the balls to argue like this face to face. The internets provide the safety of anonimity and distance.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c163/cholomite/internet-fuckwad-theory.jpg

Truth Warrior
12-09-2008, 10:58 AM
well, can you define "children"? - in the us legally that seems to range from 14 to 18 currently. An improvement because the spread used to be 12 to 21 - depending on your state.

children are those that act without accepting nor understanding the responsibility and accountability for their behavior, regardless of chronological age.<imho> behavior has consequences.

problem is this biological thing called puberty when the sex drive kicks in - and it doesn't happen at a uniform age - but generally before the age of 15.

that changes what of what i've said? We've raised three children to responsible adulthood. No abortions.

kids will have sex, if you think it's ok or not - and the main problem with unwanted pregnancies is with teenagers.

check the tragic, appaling and intolerable stats. ;) http://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/WorldClock.php (http://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/WorldClock.php)

but yes, i agree it's an individual issue.

and thus a non-state problem nor solution.

as to the church or pro-life groups taking care of kids they have pressured into keeping their kids - they completely loose interest as soon as the kid is born.

yeah, institutions suck.

btw: You skipped the burka option...

that doesn't change anything. It still just comes down to individual responsibilty for their behavior.

-t

ok? :)

tangent4ronpaul
12-09-2008, 11:31 AM
ok

and that is an eye opening page!

-t

Truth Warrior
12-09-2008, 11:56 AM
ok

and that is an eye opening page!

-t:cool:

bg1654
12-09-2008, 01:36 PM
Giving out condoms at school is not necessarily socialist. An example of this would be a private charity group that has permission from a private school to pass out condoms.